on rising to move for a committee to inquire into the propriety of repealing the exportation duties on Foreign Linen, entered into an elaborate view of the export linen trade in general. The duties on foreign linen, when imported for the purpose of exportation to the West Indies and Spanish America, were in the first instance 7½ per cent.; and when they were intended for home consumption, they amounted to 70, 80, and sometimes even to 90 per cent. This was of course almost equal to a total prohibition; but as it had no relation to the object of his motion, he should confine himself to the foreign trade. As far as related to a time of war, he acceded to the wisdom of the regula- tion, because it threw the whole trade into our hands. The great mart for linens was Spanish America, which could then only be supplied through us; but even then, we could never sell a cargo unless it were assorted, that is, unless it contained a certain portion of foreign as well as of Irish and Scotch linens. At present our depots in the West Indies were resorted to, for purchases for the Spanish American market, but the export duties prevented us from having an assortment of foreign linens, on terms as cheap as they could be sold by foreigners who carried them out from the continental ports. Now, unless our depots could be supplied with foreign linens as well as the home ones, we should be prevented from selling as much of the latter as we had been accustomed to do, as the Spaniards would not take any from us unless they could get a certain proportion of foreign. When no duties were laid on the importation of foreign linen, the consumption of what we exported of our own was much greater than it has been since, and no evil arose from the law, as it formerly stood. After a variety of observations on the necessity of competition of Irish and Scotch linens in foreign markets, which, he contended, would be effected by the repeal of the transit duty, the hon. gentleman added, that he would leave to Ireland the monopoly of her own market, and not interfere with her market in Great Britain; and concluded with moving, "That a committee be appointed to take into consideration the laws regulating the trade in foreign linen, and to report their observations thereon to the House."

said, that on a subject so deeply affecting the interests of Ireland, he could not remain silent. He thanked the hon. gentleman for what it seemed he considered a great concession, "he would leave to Ireland the monopoly of her own market, and he would not interfere with her market in Great Britain." This, in the opinion of the hon. gentleman, was a great concession, and from this the House would interpret whether his real motive were, to benefit, as he proposed, the Irish trade, or to serve the interests of the carrying merchant. In a word, it was a question between our domestic manufacturers and those who were connected with the shipping interests. It was a question, whether for their benefit, the House would depart from the policy on which they had acted, and open the markets of South America to the exporter of foreign linen in preference, and to the exclusion, he would say, of that which was subjected to taxation, to high rents, and to an expensive process, all of which prevented the Irish manufacturer from entering into competition with the fabric of those countries where the same burthens are not imposed. The hon. gentleman said, that his object was to benefit the Irish manufacturer. He preferred to the opinion of the member for Glasgow, the unanimous resolution of those connected with the linen trade of Ireland; of all the manufacturers of her provinces, and of the board who presided over their interests. He thought it extraordinary, too, that one of the arguments in support of the proposition should be, that it would benefit Ireland, yet the same point was urged by Prussia, on the ground that we were excluding her manufactures from their natural markets by out transit duty; thus the hon. gentleman proposed, for the benefit of Ireland, the same measure, exactly the same, which the Prussian merchant and the Prussian ministry contended for, on the ground that it would benefit the manufacture of Prussia and Silesia. But the hon. gentleman was still more inconsistent, for he told us that foreigners could send out their linens direct from Dantzig, Bremen, and other ports; and yet his whole argument went to prove, that assorted cargoes for the American market could be had only in the ports of Great Britain. The hon. member knew that they could not obtain; them in those British islands to which he had alluded; or did he say that they had sufficient depots in the Danish or other islands in the West Indies. He knew that they had not. The Spaniards, said the hon. member, were not satisfied without foreign linens: but he knew that for years they had none but British or Irish; for if they had any other, his complaint of the effect of the transit duty was absurd. He said that we could not send forth or sell our linen as foreign! Yet, would the House believe it, the hon. gentleman had been himself the author of a measure which dispensed with the seals and marks affixed to our linen for the avowed purpose of giving to it a character of foreign linen, and introducing it into the market of South America particularly, saying that we had the means of thus possessing ourselves of that great market. This had occurred not more than two years ago. The hon. gentleman was himself the author of that bill. At that time the manufacturers of Scotland were benefited by the one bill, and now the port of Glasgow, and the carrying merchants were to be benefited by the other. As a question of revenue he would not argue it, though in despite of the transit duty, so considerable was the export in 1814, that the duty retained in this country was near 40,000l.over and above very high import duties. A noble friend of his, the member for the county of Antrim, had that day presented a petition from the manufacturers of the north of Ireland against the duties on barilla, and other materials used in bleaching. He regretted that he had not been in the House when that petition was presented, for he certainly should have endeavoured to show that the noble lord (Yarmouth) and his constituents, had taken an erroneous, at least an unreasonable view of that question. That, however, was not the point at present. He would not obstinately persevere in retaining the duties on barilla, if it was shown that he was wrong; but if such was the feeling, such the alarm with respect to a duty so inconsiderable, what would be the impression if we took away the market which we now possessed? He could assure the House, that the alarm was great and universal; this proceeding would take from us directly our greatest consumption. The export of Irish linens to Great Britain had increased in the three last years beyond what gentlemen were perhaps aware of. In 1812 it was 35,000,000 of yards, in 1814 37,000,000, and in the last year more than 40,000,000. Since the enactment of the transit duty the increase of the import of Irish linens into this country has been progressive; this the papers on the table would show. A further proof was exhibited of the result of the transit duty in the export of Irish linens from Great Britain in the same years. In 1812, of Irish linen, the quantity exported was 5,800,000; in 1814, 7,226,000; in 1815, it amounted to 9,562,000; but the increase in the export of British linens was greater still; in the first of the years he had quoted, it was 13,000,000 of yards; in the second 18,000,000, while in the last, in despite of all the unfavourable circumstances which the hon. member had referred to, it was more than 17 millions; this would show that it was not a mere Irish question. England, too, had a little share in the consideration—or was her manufacture too to be given up for the carrying trade? But even if it were but an Irish question, it would be his duty, said the right hon. gentleman, and his determination to resist the motion. The House could hardly estimate what the feeling in Ireland was upon it. He had yesterday received a letter from the committee on the linen trade at Belfast, earnestly intreating the protection of the government, and praying that the united parliament would fulfil the pledges which the separate legislatures of Great Britain and Ireland had repeatedly given. The House of Commons would not, on the speculative opinions of any body of men, however respectable, take a proceeding so alarming to those who constituted a large portion of the Irish population. They would remember what had been promised to the staple manufacture of that country; they would remember, that you had taken the woollen trade from them, that you had forced them to abandon the manufacture which was flourishing, and that you received upwards of two millions annually from them, for that manufacture which they had abandoned. He could tell the House, on the authority of Mr. Ferguson, the chairman of that committee that he had referred to, that there had been received orders, by some of the greatest bleachers, from houses in London, for linens made up in imitation of foreign linens, and intended for the very markets which the hon. gentleman had named. These orders were now all suspended, until the fate of the present motion was decided. There was not a year which would not make this trade of Ireland more important as our fabric became more known. On these grounds, he would oppose the hon. gentleman's motion. A committee of inquiry could do no good: he saw much harm which it might do; and at a moment when parliament was devising means to encourage national industry, and to sustain the drooping exertions of the country, he, for one, would consent to nothing which must tend to diminish both, and agitate unnecessarily the minds of one of the most important provinces of Ireland. The best interests of the empire were involved in this motion, and he would therefore meet it with a direct negative.

contended, that the right hon. gentleman who had just sat down, had taken an erroneous view of the question. It had been one of the great objects of Mr. Pitt's policy to make this country the emporium of commerce. With this view he had advised the formation of those wet docks and warehouses, which were so well calculated for the furtherance of that object. There were two great articles on which our foreign commerce depended—foreign linens and French wines. He trusted, not only that the hon. member for Glasgow would succeed in his present motion, but that a general investigation would take place, in order to revive those regulations which having been made for a time of war, were not applicable to a time of peace. During war we enjoyed the monopoly of commerce, and might do as we chose. But times were changed. Peace gave to the other powers of Europe the means of competition, and unless we could enter into the contest on equal terms, our commerce would soon be lost, and go into other channels. In fact, the continuation of war duties in a time of peace, had already almost cost us the two great articles of our foreign commerce—foreign linens and French wines. As an underwriter, he had taken pains to observe the number and nature of the ships employed in the transit of foreign commerce. For the first three months after peace, the number of British ships in comparison with the number of foreign ships so employed, was as four to one. In the next three months, they were as two to one. In the succeeding three months, the number of British and foreign ships so employed, were nearly at par. In the last three months he was sorry to say, that the number of foreign ships compared with British, was as two to one. That very morning, on a reference to the list at Lloyd's, received from their agent at the Havannah, he found that at that port, (to which during the war we had a monopoly of the trade), 186 vessels had arrived in the months of January and February, and that of those 186 vessels, not one came from a British port! This was an answer to what the right hon. gentleman had said of the alarm excited among the Irish linen manufacturers, by the present proposition. If no ship arrived at the Havannah from a British port, no Irish linens could arrive there. He had formerly freighted vessels to the Havannah; and he had never sent foreign linens thither, without their having been accompanied by Irish linens. A correspondent of his had come to this country last year, from the Havannah, with 20,000l.for the purchase of goods—a fourth of which was to be laid out in foreign linens, and French wines. Finding, however, that such heavy duties were imposed on the latter articles in Great Britain, and that he could consequently obtain them at a much cheaper rate in any port of the continent, he went to the continent for that purpose, and there finding, that—owing to the wise system adopted by our late enemies, and present rivals, of establishing free ports for the reception, and re-exportation of foreign manufactures without duty he could ship other articles as well as foreign linens and French wines, on more advantageous terms than in Great Britain, instead of reserving 16,000l.for the purchase of goods in Great Britain (most of which would have been Irish linens), he laid out his whole 20,000l.in a foreign country. Yet this was the system of commercial policy, which the right hon. gentleman recommended the House to maintain. All that parliament were called upon to do was to inquire. They were not desired to pass any law: but they were desired not wil-fully to shut their eyes against all information on the subject. He was afraid his majesty's government were not sufficiently aware of the importance of the commerce which the present system tended to destroy. If the existing duty was taken off, although no immediate advantage would be derived by the exchequer, yet an indirect advantage of the greatest importance would ensue from the animation which would be imparted to our commerce, and which would circulate like the life blood through all the veins of this great empire. Considering the magnitude of the subject, and the duty imposed on parliament of giving it their most serious attention, he trusted that the motion of the hon. gentleman, for the appointment of a committee, would be acceded to.

while he admitted that, on the general principle, there was great temptation to the adoption of the hon. gentleman's proposition, yet contended that it ought to be considered with reference to particular circumstances. He was persuaded that, under those circumstances, the result of the proposed inquiry would be to reject the measure recommended by the hon. gentleman, and pending that inquiry much agitation and unpleasant feeling would be created in a part of the empire, which it was most desirable to soothe and conciliate. As to the statements made by the hon. gentleman who had just spoken, of the decline of our foreign commerce, he conceived them to be only the ordinary indications of a change from a state of war to one of peace. For his own part, he was glad to learn that some foreign ships were found where during war no foreign ship had been able to go, as it showed that the commerce of continental Europe was not altogether chilled and annihilated; and as he was convinced that this country would derive more benefit from the extent to which her commercial transactions would be carried in peace, than from the commercial monopoly which she had possessed in war. As to the general principle, he did not wish to see a heavy transit duty on those articles of foreign produce, in the carrying of which the trade of this country was so much benefited. The carrying trade of this country was a most advantageous branch of commerce, but in the present case it was not that kind of one which should be preferred to so important a branch of our home manufacture as the linen trade, or cultivated to its prejudice. He was not prepared to admit, that by an adherence to a general principle of commerce, we should silence or sacrifice an important commercial and manufacturing branch of such vast local advantage. Another objection which he had to the appointment of a committee was, that besides its creating a great degree of alarm, it would not afford any additional information to that which was already furnished by several documents which were before the House. For he contended, that there was no branch of this trade with which the House could not be fully informed by documents which had been already laid before them. The committee might, indeed, be able to furnish a good deal of reasoning on the subject, but they would not be able to produce any new facts. It was clear that the exports of Irish linen had considerably increased since the imposition of the transit duty, and the general fear in Ireland was, that the trade would be materially injured by the repeal of that duty. This it was which caused so much alarm on the part of the Irish manufacturers; and he contended that it was the duty of the House rather to allay any ferment on the part of the people of Ireland than contribute to increase it by the adoption of such a measure as that which was now proposed. He thought it was not consistent with sound commercial policy to play tricks with our domestic industry, and he was convinced that with regard to Ireland, the present was by no means the time for such experiments. He would not object generally to making this country the grand emporium of foreign produce, but he should make a great distinction between such articles as would be in competition with our home produce, and those which were not so.

supported the motion. If it had not been for the statements of the noble lord and the right hon. gentleman, that doubts were entertained on the subject, he should have thought it unnecessary to enter into the inquiry. It had been said that the trade had increased. But when had it increased? It had increased during war. An hon. gentleman, however, had shown that this trade was now on the point of being annihilated. There were this year 186 ships at the Havannah, and not one British among them; and yet the noble lord said the House had all the facts before them to enable them to make up their minds that the inquiry was unnecessary. He should like to know what could be said on this subject by the board of trade and by the chancellor of the exchequer; and he hoped the House would be indulged with their opinion. If they did not say any thing upon it, he was sure they must differ in opinion from the noble lord. Why should we not return to our former policy in time of peace? He entreated those gentlemen to vote for this committee who had always considered the carrying trade of great importance though the noble lord called on the House to resist inquiry, because there were a few people, manufacturers, who, in his humble opinion, were counteracting their own interests, by contending for a measure which would be vitally injurious to the carrying trade. He trusted, no person would believe that the House ought to have its hands tied up from such an inquiry.

was convinced that the hon. member who spoke last was actuated in what he said by the best of motives: but he was also certain that that hon. member had argued from an erroneous view of the question. It was erroneous to suppose that the people, whose fears were so justly excited by the notice of the present motion, were few in number. The fact was they were a most numerous, industrious, and respectable body of people. They were, he might say, almost the whole of the population of the province of Ulster. They carried on this important trade, which was the staple trade of Ireland, and which England was bound to protect, as it had been guaranteed to Ireland by the promise of king William 3d, in lieu of the woollen trade, of which they were then deprived. It was a trade, the protection of which was granted to them in lieu of that great trade in which they were at one time the powerful rivals of England. Would the hon. member say that those men were misguided who looked with fear on any act of the legislature which went to injure their staple trade? Or would he say that they were only a few, when he (Mr. Peel) informed him of their great numbers? The fears which were excited by the notice of the present motion had already a very powerful effect in giving a partial stagnation to the Irish linen trade, as had been proved by what had fallen from his right hon. friend (Mr. V. Fitzgerald). He would not say that all those fears which were entertained on this subject were well founded, but he would contend, that as such fears were known to exist, it would be impolitic at the present moment to increase them by any act which could ultimately produce no good. He thought that it would be considered as a bad omen by the people of Ireland, if a motion were acceded to, which, in their opinion of it, would be sacrificing their staple trade to the carrying trade of England. This, he was convinced, would be considered as a bad omen of the disposition of parliament towards them, on the eve of its going into the discussion of the motion of the right hon. baronet opposite (sir J. Newport), and therefore he contended it would be highly impolitic to accede to the motion. An hon. member had said, that the repeal of the transit duties would serve the linen-manufacturer of Ireland. This was but an opinion, and against that opinion he could urge two others. The one, that of the foreign manufacturers, and the other, that of a most intelligent body of men—the linen board of Ireland. The former were convinced that the repeal of the transit duty would not serve the Irish manufacturer, and the latter were equally certain of it. The right hon. gentleman concluded by stating, that the present question should not be considered solely in a commercial point of view, but also in a political one. Its consequence would involve great agitation, which it should be the duty of parliament rather to allay than stimulate.

regretted that he felt himself under the necessity of differing from the opinions of his right hon. and noble friends, respecting the duty in question. About three years ago, when the continent was gradually shaking off the manacles imposed upon it by what was called the continental system, it was reported to him, and he concurred in the opinion, that the repeal of this transit duty would be beneficial. If he had thought it would have been injurious to Ireland, he would not have been in favour of it. He knew that the subject had excited strong dissensions; but he had uniformly stated the impossibility of submitting it to the House, without the concurrence of the manufacturers both of England and Ireland. They, however, differed from him, and on repeated applications, one of which was made only last year, he distinctly gave them to understand, that unless the manufacturers of Ireland and Scotland could be conciliated, and brought to agree with his view of the subject, he must decline interfering in it. He still thought the repeal of the duty would not be prejudicial to Ireland; but there certainly were circumstances in the case which induced him to hope that the measure would not now be pressed upon the House.

was in favour of the motion. He said, that the advantage Ireland would receive from the abolition of the duty would assuredly be a considerable export trade beyond what she enjoyed at present. If this country laid a small duty only on transits, it would be for the general benefit of the manufacturers of Ireland. He thought an inquiry more likely to allay the alarm and irritation alluded to than to increase them.

advocated the advantages of appointing a committee, conceiving the reasons advanced by his hon. friend who made the motion as perfectly conclusive.

conceived the committee unnecessary. The object proposed by the hon. member appeared to him highly injudicious.

lamented that such a motion as the present should have been made at all, but particularly on the eve of the discussion of the question respecting Ireland, which he should have the honour of submitting. He contended, that the adoption of any measure which would tend to injure the linen manufacture of Ireland, would be a direct violation of a most solemn engagement on the part of England to protect that trade, which she had adopted on being driven out of her wool- len trade. The effects of the present motion, if acceded to, would be most injurious to Ireland, as it would be believed there, that England was about to sacrifice the linen trade as she had already done the woollen. He did not mean to say that the House could entertain such an intention, even if it adopted the motion; but such would be the opinion in Ireland, and therefore he should oppose the motion; The present was not the time for the discussion of such a question, and therefore it would only add irritation and disquiet, where too much of both existed already.

in reply, observed, that whatever argument had been advanced in the progress of this debate, had been directed rather against the supposed object of the inquiry than against inquiry itself. In his opinion no proof had been adduced that inquiry would prove prejudicial to the Irish manufacture: on the contrary, he believed it would be of advantage to it. He knew that considerable alarm had arisen from a misconception that the object of his motion was to throw the home market open to foreign linens of every description. The noble lord had said truly, that there was a great increase in the exports of linen from Germany; and this increase might be of material advantage to our commerce, if we reverted to our former policy; but at present it was of none. He feared much that if further delay took place, this transit trade would take another turn; and he was satisfied that the noble lord was not aware of the deep interest which foreigners, and particularly the Americans had in the continuance of the present system.

The House then divided:—For the motion, 33; Against it, 108; Majority, 75.

in presenting a petition from the landowners and occupiers of land in the county of Fife and its neighbourhood, said, he was happy on the present occasion by bringing before the House a petition most respectably signed by the inhabitants of that neighbourhood, to wipe out a sort of aspersion which had been cast on them on a former occasion, by the assertion that there had been but four voices in that county raised against the property tax. In the petition he held in his hand the abolition of that impost was gratefully acknowledged. This would prove that the general feeling in that quarter with respect to it, was not what might have been sup- posed from the statement to which he had referred. The petition, in setting forth the distresses of the agricultural interests, complained that the same time was not allowed by the commissioners in Scotland for the payment of the property tax now due, which had been granted to the same class of persons in England. In this country the farmer was not required to pay his property tax till July; in Scotland it had been already demanded. One uniform rule he was of opinion ought to be acted upon in both countries. The assessments made on property were also complained of, the tax being demanded on greater property than was really possessed, and on rents which ought to have been paid, but which had not been received, and were not likely to be made good.

said, that numerous cases had come to his knowledge in which the tax had been levied on rents which had been remitted, though notice of the remission had been given: and also in cases where no rent had been received. He wished to know if any relief was to be afforded in such cases.

said, that this subject would be best taken into consideration when a measure which he intended soon to bring before the House should come under discussion. It would then be for them to determine whether any modification of the arrangement made under the minute of the treasury with respect to cases where rent had been remitted, would be expedient.

begged to remark, that he had never said there were only four voices raised against the property tax in the county of Fife. What he had asserted, he would now repeat, namely, that at a meeting called to petition against the tax, there were only found four persons (those who had called the meeting) to vote against its renewal.

The petition was ordered to lie on the table.

rose, and began by observing that he derived much satisfaction in performing the duty which he had undertaken, from the reflection that it would be unnecessary for him to fatigue the House by any statement of details in support of the motion of which he had given notice. The papers already laid on the table bad furnished the most ample evidence of the state of the country both in its financial circumstances, its agriculture, and its manufactures. It was enough for him to refer the House to these documents, and to recommend to it that proceeding which, in his judgment, was the best calculated to enforce the adoption of a system of rigid economy in the expenditure of the public funds. He should perhaps be told, that the estimates had been revised, that considerable retrenchments had taken place, and that a sufficient disposition had been manifested to reduce the expenditure to as low a point as was consistent with national security. At the reductions which had been effected he rejoiced; and if this was an admission that the original estimates had exceeded what necessity required, he knew that their reduction was to be attributed to the exertions made in opposition to them, and to the emphatic tone in which the public opinion had been pronounced against them [Hear, hear!]. This was a circumstance which afforded encouragement to persevere in those efforts which had for their object a diminution of the public burthens. It was not his intention to enter on any discussion with respect to the armies we were maintaining abroad, or the various topics of colonial policy on which so much debate had already taken place; but he must still take the liberty of saying, that in his opinion there was no period of our history when the establishments of the country could be reduced with perfect safety to a lower scale than at the present moment [Hear, hear!]. When he compared our expenditure with that of any former time—when he considered the amount of the national debt, and on the other hand contemplated the admitted difficulties of the country, he was convinced that standing armies ought to be as much as ever an object of constitutional jealousy, and that the interests of the country could only be secured by persevering in the policy of general retrenchment. The noble lord concluded by moving: "That an Address be presented to his royal highness the Prince Regent, setting forth, that the House, in pursuance of the estimates which his royal highness had caused to be laid before them, had voted a military force greatly exceeding, in amount, what had been required on any former occasion, after the restoration of peace; but while they thus placed at his disposal that force which he considered to be necessary un der existing circumstances, they humbly added their earnest prayer, that he would take the earliest opportunity of discontinuing the great military establishment thus sustained, which little agreed with the former policy of the country, and pressed heavy on its resources. That while they relied on the wisdom of his royal highness, they could not but consider a large standing army, in time of peace, as a subject of constitutional jealousy; for this reason, as well as on account of the heavy burthens thrown on the people by a long protracted war (which they hoped would be taken into consideration by his royal highness), and also from a conviction that economy as necessary to the support of public credit; they prayed that he would be graciously pleased to reduce and limit to the utmost the peace establishment now to be formed, and to enforce the most rigid and undeviating economy in every department of the state."

said, he was as much a friend to small economy as other people, but it was not a reduction of part of the staff of our army, it was not a reduction of 100,000l.from the ordnance estimates, it was not the discharge of a few clerks which could at this time save the country. Its situation could not now be looked at without feeling the greatest alarm. The whole amount of the sums to be provided for the year was 31,683,000l.Of this the establishments of the country formed upwards of 28 millions. But this was not all. Two-seventeenths of the joint expenditure of the United Kingdoms were, by the treaty of union, to be charged to the account of the treasury of Ireland; but such was now the situation of that country that its finances were not equal even to the payment of the interest of its debt; and we should have this year, besides the 2–17ths already mentioned, to make up a deficiency in the interest of the Irish debt, and the expense of the Irish civil list, amounting in all to 997,380l.Adding this sum to the 31,683,000l.the whole would amount to upwards of 32 millions and a half. To meet this sum, the whole ways and means, including the surplus in the hands of the chancellor of the exchequer, as stated by the right hon. gentleman himself, amounted to 12,700,000l.Deducting this from the 32,680,000, the amount of our expenditure in this first year of peace, the deficiency would be found to amount to no less than 19,981,000l.It would be con- solatory to think that this deficiency arose in any great degree from the charges of winding up the war, charges not likely to occur again. But there was unfortunately no such consolation. How much did the House believe, on the present scale of our establishment, could be deducted from this deficiency of 19½ millions in future years? One million would have in future years to be added to our expenditure for the sum to be borrowed either from the bank, or by exchequer bills in the present year. He would ask the House to consider whereabouts we stood, when in the first year of the peace we should be obliged to borrow 19½ millions. Had ministers in contemplation to reduce this dreadful expenditure in any important degree? If they reduced the deficiency of the succeeding year to 15,000,000l.,it would be more than we had now reason to expect—Would they do this? and even if they did, we had the prospect before us of adding fifteen millions a year to our national debt.

It had been said, that Mr. Pitt had repented of the low rate at which he had fixed the peace establishment of the country previously to the last war; but persons who were well acquainted with the opinions of Mr. Pitt, had denied that he had ever expressed any regret at that circumstance. He (Mr. Grant) had never felt any great admiration of Mr. Pitt, as prime minister of this country; his abilities, however, were entitled to a high degree of respect, and it was but justice to him to say, that he had used his utmost efforts to reduce the expenditure in time of peace to a level with the income. He had imposed taxes to this end [Hear, hear! from the chancellor of the exchequer]—Yes, but he had also reduced the establishments to the lowest possible amount. In 1791 he instituted a committee of this House to inquire into the state of the public expenditure, so determined was he not to rest till he had openly and clearly shown the House and the country the grounds on which the expenditure then stood. From the estimates which had been laid before them, it could not be supposed that his majesty's ministers had taken any such extended view of the finances of the country. They must have begun at the wrong end; they had inquired for what sum certain services could be performed, instead of saying that there was a certain sum of which the best must be made. On any other supposition, it could not be imagined that they would have proposed a vote of 150,000 men for services for which only 50,000 had ever before been demanded. With regard to the necessity of this force, neither he nor the House could judge from any thing but from their knowledge of the history of times past. He could not say that a given number was sufficient in this or that island or garrison, but from the knowledge that on former occasions the same number had maintained the interests of the country. But the estimates which had been proposed and voted were greater than those which had been voted for the same services in former years of peace, and had only been defended on the supposition that they were the intermediate establishments between peace and war. But if the extent of the establishments was defended on this ground, it should be shown that the possessions in which the great establishments were kept up, were exposed to some dangers which in following years would cease. What dangers were the Ionian islands or the West Indian islands exposed to now, to which they would be less liable in the next year? Or if there were none, why support a temporary establishment? He could account for this reduction which was promised on no other supposition than this, that the ministers had formed estimates which they were themselves convinced were extravagant, and to avoid the shame of an immediate revision, they had raised the fiction of an intermediate state between peace and war, for which there was no ground either in the nature of public affairs, or the practice of the country. In Canada it was said the frontier had been cultivated, and the security which had been derived from morasses and forests had been taken away. But was it expected that these forests would rise again, or the morasses be formed again, so as to warrant a reduction hereafter which was not now practicable?

In 1791 the committee had approved the estimates which had been presented by the ministers without any reduction. On comparing those estimates with the votes of the present year, the difference was striking. It had been attempted to explain this difference by saying, that the pay of the army had been increased, and that Ireland had not been included in the estimates of that year. Yet even by trebling the whole estimate of that year, and making allowance for Ireland and for that expense which had been indecently called a dead weight on the country, he meant the pensions to those who had served their country and had bled for it, the sum of six millions only would be the result, instead of the 11,316,000l.which was now demanded. The estimate of 1791 was 1,518,842l.The half-pay, Chelsea hospital, and Hesse Cassel subsidy, amounted to 448,631l.,which being deducted, left 1,070,211l.The extraordinaries were 280,000l.which made 1,350,211l.

It required that a strong case should be made out to account for this increase. It had always been the practice of the country not only to husband its resources in time of peace, but to reduce at once the military force to the lowest peace establishment which it was thought fit to maintain. As an example of this, he should cite the force which had been voted after the peace of Paris. It had never been thought necessary in time of peace to maintain a force sufficient to repel a formidable invasion, but merely sudden attacks or domestic insurrection. Neither insurrection nor invasion had we now to fear; and though he did not think the peace which had been concluded, or the arrangements made, likely to secure the permanent peace of Europe, yet neither did he think that in the present or the next year, or for some few years to come, we had much danger to apprehend; it was therefore imperatively necessary to husband our resources at the present time, that we might be prepared for the future.

In looking at the constitutional view of the question he should remark, that in the comparisons which had been made between the present and former peace establishments the numbers of rank and file only of the present establishment had been taken into account, while the whole number of troops voted on former occasions had been set against them. This made the difference appear less striking than it really was, for the whole number of troops to be kept in Great Britain, would be found to be at least 32,000, including officers, of which there were 28,000 rank and file. In 1792, the whole force in Great Britain, was 15,919; it was now 32,000 men. In the Old Colonies, the force was in 1792, 16,848: it was now 27,000. In Ireland it was then 16,000; now it was 28,000. This made, in the former period, a total of 48,767, and at present 87,000. Added to this, near 25,000 for the New Colonies, made a total of 111,756 men, which was the number actually voted this year, exclusive of the armies in France and India. For what purpose this force was to be kept up it was hard to say. It had been said that it could not be for purposes inimical to the constitution. He was not sent there to compliment any body of men, but to perform his duty to the people [Hear!]; and consistently with that duty, he could not entrust any prince or any ministers with so large a military force. He could not conscientiously say that a force of 32,000 men could be permanently kept on foot in this island without danger to the constitution.—In the course of his speech, Mr. Grant read to the House the following statements:

The hon. and learned gentleman concluded by repeating, that the House would not do its duty if they were satisfied with general professions of economy; for, even if the policy of low establishments had not been that which had been uniformly pursued in former times, this would be the moment to adopt it.

begged to assure the hon. gentleman who spoke last, that in rising to oppose the motion, he did not intend to do so on the ground that he had assumed might be taken; or that of the motion being of too unusual a nature to be entertained. He did not quarrel with it because it had no precedent; for he would admit that the circumstances of the country were now so different from what they were formerly, that that course might be justifiable in the present state of things, which could not have been with propriety resorted to before. The objection he had to the motion was this, that it went to induce the House virtually to rescind the vote which they had come to on mature consideration, and after the most ample discussion, when the estimates were before them. He thought the motion improper, as it went to produce this immediate effect; and as to any prospective advantages to be derived from it, he must say, so far as the address had any relation to future estimates, it appeared to be wholly unnecessary. He was confident the House would concur with him in taking this view of the motion before them, so far as it regarded the arrangements of a future year. When another year should arrive, and ministers had made up their minds what establishments to propose for the service of it, and had prepared those estimates which it would be their duty to make, that would be the proper time for parliament to give an opinion on the subject. He viewed the motion of the noble lord in no other light than as one brought forward against the supplies which had already been voted for the service of the year; he could only see in it an indirect attempt to extort from the House a decision against what they had already pronounced upon. While speaking of the changes made in the military establishments, the hon. gentleman had said, the economy recommended in the speech of the Prince Regent at the beginning of the session, had not manifested itself in any of the arrangements of government, till after the strong expression of public opinion in that House had extorted from them measures of retrenchment. The hon. gentleman would thence have it understood, that the reductions which had taken place were the consequences of the proceedings to which he had alluded. The noble lord said, he was at issue with the hon. gentleman on this question. He denied the inference attempted to be drawn from what had occurred in the course of the present session, with respect to the revision of these estimates, and he would appeal to the House, if in the earliest moments when he had an opportunity of speaking on them, he had not stated them to have been made out as they were first presented, to facilitate the mechanical part of the business of the year, from its being desirable that they should have some data to go upon, before it was possible for a correct calculation to be formed as to the reductions which it might be practicable to make. To the recollection of the House he appealed if he had not said, when they were first produced, that the supplies, subsequently to be called for, would be much below those which appeared on the papers; if he had not said, that the estimates were such as were thought necessary at the close of the last year, but that in number and amount of the forces that would ultimately be proposed they would be considerably less. This he had stated to the House early in the session, and he therefore denied that the reductions which had been made in the staff of the army and in the local militia, and which had been recently submitted to parliament, were forced on ministers, or that their late conduct had been at all inconsistent with the language they had held at an earlier period than that to which their opponents so triumphantly referred. What had been done was perfectly in conformity with the explanations he had offered when he was first permitted to speak on the estimates in question. The sum at present voted for the army, the hon. gentleman had said, amounted to about 9,300,000l.He was not correct in this, as the whole of the supplies on account of the army, which had yet been obtained, were under 8,000,000l.This error, however, made no difference in the general argument of the hon. member. But he had endeavoured to make it appear, that the whole charge for the present year must be borne in the next. The noble lord said, he had over and over again shown that it was not likely a similar expense would fall on the country in future years, as many of the items were charges for winding up the war, which could not recur again. If, as the hon. gentleman had said, the revenue fell short in the present year of the sum necessary to meet the supplies demanded, to a very considerable amount, he (lord Palmerston) thought it rather hard that this should be urged as a serious charge against the government by those who had deprived them of so large a portion of the taxes by which it was proposed to cover them. If it was necessary to have recourse to a loan for the service of the present year, it was not quite fair that this should be censured by those who had so incessantly laboured to make it necessary, or that ministers, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, should be attacked because their ways and means fell short of the supplies which had been granted. The necessity under which the nation laboured of borrowing in the present year, was not the fault of the government, as it grew out of the course which parliament, on due consideration, had thought it wise to adopt in opposition to them.—As he had already so often gone into the details of the estimates, he would not now explain the considerations which had caused those arrangements to be determined upon, which had been made for the defence of our new colonies, the West Indies and America; but he thought it necessary to remark, that the hon. gentleman had over stated the force which it was thought proper to keep up in this country. He had stated it to amount altogether to 32,000 men. In this the hon. gentleman was mistaken. He would appeal to the House if it had ever been proposed to keep up more than 25,000 men. These were not merely the number of the effectives, but that of the establishment, exclusive of three thousand men as reliefs, making altogether but 28,000. The numbers set down for the service abroad were also not those of the effectives, but of the establishments.—One great point in the consideration of this question was, the objection made to a standing army in time of peace. It was, however, to be remembered, that a standing army had always been kept up, and therefore the constitutional question could now only arise out of the additional 8,000 men which it had been proposed to maintain. The hon. gentleman had shown that England had not been accustomed, in peace, to keep up a military force of sufficient strength to defend her in war. It had never been intended to do so during the present peace. His majesty's ministers had entertained no such design, but they had thought it of some importance to secure the means of keeping up a sufficient force in our colonial possessions, to repel a sudden attack, to which they were the more exposed, from the distance at which they lay from the mother country. It had been said, that that which had made England a great and an energetic nation, was the principle heretofore acted upon of maintaining a very low peace establishment, while the peace establishments of the continent were uniformly high. He did not agree with the hon. gentleman in the view which he had taken of this subject. For his part, he believed much of our financial embarrassment to have been caused by our former low peace establishments, and to this circumstance the failure of many of our military operations might with certainty be traced. The evils arising from the peace establishment being too low had been but too severely felt, at the commencement of the last war. It would have been well for this country had a principle been acted upon in the peace which preceded it, different from that which was then adopted, and which was now recommended by the gentlemen opposite. But it was taking a very superficial view of the subject, to suppose that the comparison that might be made between England and some of the nations of the continent in our favour, was to be accounted for, from the circumstance of a few thousands of soldiers being kept up on the peace establishment of one nation more than on that of another. The hon. gentleman might have looked deeper into it, and he would then have found the difference better explained by the principles of the British constitution. It was to that liberty which we enjoyed that the industry and exertion which happily distinguished England from many of the continental powers was to be ascribed, and to these advantages, which a free people only could possess, we owed all our superiority, which would not be affected by the largeness or smallness of our peace establishment.—Entertaining this opinion, he now pressed it on the House, that unless they were prepared to rescind the resolutions they had agreed to, and the opinions they had pronounced before the recess, on the estimates submitted to them, after consideration as long and mature, and after discussion as full and as ample, as had ever taken place on any question,—unless the House would do this, and undo now all they had done then, by calling on the sovereign to disband that force which their vote had authorized him to retain—unless the House, taking quite a different view of the state of the nation from what they took of it before, wished to act the part he had described, he called upon them not to concur in the present motion, because the effect of it was but to call upon the Crown to undo what parliament had done. The motion, so far as it regarded the establishments of next year, was wholly unnecessary. In due time the proper estimates and documents would be laid before the House, and they would be as competent to examine and criticise all the items in them, when 1817 should arrive, as they had been in the present year: while from the information of which parliament would by that time he possessed, they could discern all the various bearings of the question, certainly as well, if not better, than they could now, and then they could fairly decide whether the supplies called for were or were not required, with due attention to those principles of economy, for which the hon. gentlemen opposite so strenuously contended. To assure those hon. gentlemen that the individuals whose duty it would be to bring the subject forward, were as anxious to frame them with every possible regard to economy as any of their opponents could be, would perhaps call forth expressions that would imply a suspicion "that much faith ought not to be given to such a declaration; but he could sincerely assure them, that there would exist, as there had existed, every disposition to frame them on the most rigid principles of economy, consistently with the discharge of the important duty imposed upon them, of defending this country, and its numerous dependencies, from every danger which could reasonably be anticipated. He would appeal to the hon. gentleman himself, if, at least, since that period at which he asserted retrenchment to have been forced on the government, great exertions had not been made on their part to lower the public expenditure, by making every practicable reduction. Unless the hon. gentleman thought the vigilance of parliament would not survive till another session,—unless he believed the same disposition and ability to watch and control the government, if they proposed an establishment on too large a scale, would no longer remain,—unless he thought the House would not then, as now, be alive to its duty, he must feel that at present there was no necessity for this motion. At a time like the present he felt that the greatest possible attention ought to be paid to economy; and he had, therefore, no wish, by opposing a direct negative to the address, to make it be thought that this feeling was other than general within those walls, and would therefore move,—" That the House do proceed to the other orders of the day."

said:—Mr. Speaker; My noble friend, the secretary at war, has argued that this motion is ill-timed and superfluous. I shall presume to contend that it is neither the one nor the other. My noble friend will allow me, Sir, to observe to him, that that proposition can never be ill-timed which is founded in the public exigencies, and has the public good for its object: that that motion can never be deemed superfluous in a British House of Commons, which goes to identify the desires of the legislature with the prayers of the people. Sir, the consequences that must follow from the adoption of the address proposed to us, are indeed of a moment and magnitude unparalleled. The vote of to-night goes in effect to decide the peace system of this country, and in that what is not comprehended? its prosperity, its very existence! It will decide whether we shall recur to those notions and adhere to those principles that have made us what we are, or resort to others that may make us any thing else—whether we are prepared to sacrifice to military pride and civil profusion in peace those means that constitute the sinew of our strength in war—whether, in short, we indeed prefer the patronage—the overgrown dangerous and preposterous patronage—of the government to the constitution itself, which it gradually corrupts. These, Sir, and no less than these, are some of the points involved in our decision of to night, and it will require even more ingenuity than the secretary at war possesses to divert the attention of the House from their paramount importance.

To the frame and tenor of the address my noble friend opposite has not even attempted to urge an objection—how should he? it is temperate, it is dignified, it is loyal;—but it has yet another characteristic, which I trust in this House at least will long be deemed a merit—it is purely British—British in its principle, because it is just—British in its policy, because it is straightforward—British in its language, because it is the language of truth. Sir, the people from all quarters have addressed themselves to us;—they have complained of excessive establishments, they have complained of a wanton and scandalous expenditure, they have complained of grievous, of intolerable distress. Is it fitting that the throne only should be left in ignorance, either of their sufferings, which we know to be real, or of their demands, which we hold to be reasonable? And how would it appear that his royal highness the Prince Regent is informed of the actual condition of the country which it is his lot to govern?—not from his language to his parliament—for there is no man who can believe that, if so informed, his royal highness could have mistaken stagnating manufacture and suspended agriculture for symptoms of universal prosperity, or the sad, the shameful necessity of governing a large portion of his dominions by the sword, for proof positive of his people's welfare! His advisers, indeed, to do them justice, have evinced the sincerity of their belief in the truth of what they had so counselled the regent to assert in their pleasant projects of peace government; but in these they but proved themselves to know nothing either of the feelings of the country, or the sense of parliament; and it is not too much to presume, that they who stand themselves convicted of gross ignorance, cannot by possibility have enlightened the mind of another. If, therefore, any other ground were wanting for the adoption of this address than the actual and evident state of affairs, it would be to be found in that state of profound ignorance in which the Prince Regent has been so long and so injuriously kept.

Sir, the address is mainly directed to two principal points, military establishments and finance; and first, as to the military establishments. My noble friend opposite, Sir, has argued that the address implies a censure on the recent resolution of the House, which fixed the amount of military force for the present year. It may be very dexterous, no doubt, thus to endeavour to deter gentlemen from their duty by suggesting this false alarm for their consistency, but it can succeed with no one who has read the address, or heard it read. Sir, it does not seek now to undo that which has been already done—still less does it seek to attain great prospective benefits through the medium of little retrospective reproaches. It states to his royal highness that, in compliance with the desire of his government, we have proceeded to sanction for the present year an extent of military establishments unprecedented in peace; and it expresses a regret which cannot but be common to all sides of this House, and to all classes of Englishmen—a regret that in the content plation of that government, any case of necessity should have existed to warrant so signal a departure from the first principle of our constitution, and the universal practice of our ancestors. It prays that the most prompt and efficacious means may be used to reduce them for the ensuing year; and it deprecates this measure (standing as it must on its own exclusive grounds) being converted into a precedent for the future. Undoubtedly, if there be a man who is enamoured of large military establishments for their own sake, who would lament to see them reduced in another year, who ardently desires that they may be henceforth considered not as the exception, but the rule; he, and he alone, must oppose this address. For one, I protest, that if I had been as much convinced of the expediency of what we have done as I am of its inexpediency; if I were as well satisfied that the House would now confirm that vote if under their consideration as I am that they would reverse it—if it had been adopted by one of the largest instead of one the smallest majorities with which so vital a question was ever carried by a minister, I should have equally felt myself called upon to concur in this protecting vote. Sir, with respect to the diminution of those establishments, my noble friend, the secretary at war, seems extremely desirous to impress upon the House, that whatever little might have been done, or may yet be expected to be done, is not the effect of any thing that has passed here, but my noble friend must submit to be judged by facts and circumstances. True it is that some reductions upon the original estimates have been made; but how, why, and when have they been made? under what circumstances, in what spirit have they been made? are they the result of a wise and enlightened view of the situation of the country deliberately taken by the ministers of the Crown, digested into a solid plan, and gravely submitted to parliament? Sir, they are none of all this—convenience not conviction gave them birth—they are the result of a cool calculation of the minimum of retrenchment by which the minister might for the moment avert from his head the impending storm of public indignation! Let the House look well to this—assurances the most positive had been given that these estimates had been calculated on the lowest possible scale consistent with the public security—the noble lord had not been sparing of his challenges to us to go through them, item by item, and point by point; it was not till, disturbed somewhat rudely by the clamour of "ignorant impatience," he had awoke from his golden dream of universal prosperity to contemplate his own peril—it was not till he had been defeated in his most favourite measure —it was not till he had had an "hair-breadth escape" from a direct censure on the prodigality of his administration being recorded on our journals—it was not till a language not to be misunderstood had been heard within these walls—till warnings and even denunciations had passed those lips from whence praise and panegyric only had been accustomed to flow—it was not, in short, till the noble lord had discovered that the House of Commons was no longer his but the country's, that alarmed but not reformed, confounded but not converted, he gave to the wind his assurances, his challenges, his protestations—then the tocsin was sounded from Downing-street to the Horse Guards—committees of ministerial safety were appointed the commander-in-chief was summoned to these midnight meetings. On a sudden impossibilities became practicable! Absurd and wild suggestions became proper and prudent precautions! then (oh! auspicious discovery!) it was indeed found that 120,000l.might be saved on the ordnance that—90,000l.might be saved on the staff—that a few thousand pounds might be saved on the cavalry—and all this, be it observed, with one scratch of the pen upon estimates calculated on the lowest possible scale consistent with the public security!—but the 150,000 men!—Alas! it was too late—the statements of authority (so stoutly advanced to be so precipitately abandoned) had had but too much success—the 150,000 men were already beyond our reach. These reductions were therefore confined to such heads of the estimates as by chance were not yet concluded against us—but no; it was not to chance that we owe the opportunity of obtaining even this miserable pittance of justice to the people—we owe it solely to the vigilance and firmness of my right hon. friend below me (Mr. Tierney). I call upon the House to recollect the indecent haste with which it was attempted in a single night to hurry us on vote by vote through all the items of these estimates; but the attempt was defeated by the expressed determination of my right hon. friend to persevere through the night in moving the question of adjournment; and what followed? they who would not concede an hour to the decorum of our proceedings, and on behalf of the people's interest, did not blush, when their own paltry interests were ascertained to be in jeopardy, to come down to the House to ask days, nay weeks of delay. Sir, I beseech the House of Commons to bear in mind (they may profit by the lesson of experience) that but for my right hon. friend they would thus have sanctioned an expenditure of the public money, which they who proposed it, have since discovered would have been unnecessary, and which, if unnecesary, I take leave to say, would, in the present state of things, have been highly criminal. Such is the history of these reductions; yet it is to these we are referred for an argument to forbear from any expression of our opinions—as if because we had extorted something like an acknowledgment of the principle by exertion, we were to expect a due application of it from our silence! With regard to the trifling further reductions so pompously announced, I will only observe that they have all the same suspicious origin; that they all bear the common stamp of insincerity: whether a further saving of 50,000l. on the ordnance, of 40.000l.on the staff, of some few more thousands on the cavalry, will answer the ends of his majesty's ministers I know not, but sure I am that they are wholly inadequate to meet the just hopes and expectations of the country.

But, Sir, upon all these subjects, a sort of general defence has been set up by the noble lord in the blue ribbon, which I am the less willing to pass over, as the lamentations of the secretary at war upon the miseries of small peace establishments bear not a little upon it. The noble viscount has said—"You are not at war, but you are not yet at peace; you are in an inter-mediate stage between war and peace." If such a position be once admitted by the House, I say that real and substantial peace is no more for England; it is precisely this intermediate state which will fill up every interval betwixt every war, which will furnish means of mischief to every successive minister, and will ultimately debilitate the country, by perpetuating its burthens. And what is its estimated duration? —two or three years, said the chancellor of the exchequer at the commencement of the session—two or three years, Sir, we know to be but an indefinite term at best, and it is not altogether impossible that the same chancellor of the exchequer who is in the habit of omitting millions in his calculations of money, may prove not quite accurate in his calculations of time. I shall take leave to fix its duration not to any given number of years, but to the precise hour of the next declaration of war. Away then with this impudent pretext! England fought for peace; sensible, substantial, unequivocal peace; and she was told she had obtained it. It was not till an argument was wanting for large standing armies and continued taxation that the discovery was made, or at least avowed, that the famous thousand and one treaties had, after all, procured to us nothing more than the reversion of a peace, after an indefinite term, provided we should so long live! I pretend not, Sir, to predict how soon the torch of war may again cast its hideous glare upon the continent. With the opinions I happen to entertain, in common with my hon. friend who seconded this address, of the proceedings of the congress at Vienna, and more especially of the part acted there by Great Britain, I cannot be very sanguine; but, while we are yet in alliance with the whole world, let us not be told by the negociator of the peace, and the eulogist of his own negociations, that we must be content for the present to be released from little else of war than its triumphs. Sir, that in whatever quarter war may be first rekindled, and for whatever cause, England will there present herself with the sword in one hand and subsidies in the other, we have no good reason to doubt; but some repose at least the harassed world must have; and if there be a power who refuses to partake in it, least it should prove short, and who prefers to parade the while under the pressure of his armour that weighs him down, that power, when the struggle shall be renewed, will, from his own folly, be the first to fall, and let it at least not be England!

Upon the financial part of this subject I can hardly persuade myself to say a word, after the luminous and incontrovertible speech of my hon. friend, the member for Grimsby. The observations I will obtrude upon the patience of the House shall be but two or three. In the course of one of the discussions subsequent to the rejection of the income tax, a memorable admission fell from the chancellor of the exchequer. In that sort of easy, innocent, inconsequent tone in which a man would hardly speak of the state of the weather, the chancellor of the exchequer said that the financial condition of the country was truly critical. Now, Sir, though it required no conjuror to tell us this, and most of us were pretty well apprized of it already, yet falling from the finance minister and under the circumtances it did, I own it made a strong impression on my mind; and how my right hon. friend (for whose virtues I have a sincere respect), with this truth engraven on his mind; with his eyes open to the precipice, can have reconciled it to himself to aid and abet the wild and ruinous career of which the dawn of the noble lord's peace administration has given promise to the country, is to me unaccountable. Does the right hon. gentleman need to be reminded of the dreadful consequences that have followed from financial difficulties? of the terrible convulsions, the bloody revolutions to which they have given birth in no distant countries, and at no remote periods? or does he vainly imagine that with us alone the same moral causes will not produce the same moral effects,—that we forsooth by some magical incantation are to be exempted from the train of disasters at tendent upon financial mal-administration? Our resources indeed are great, pre-eminently great, but have they not been severely tried? and where are those resources that can be for ever proof against gross mismanagement? Sir, the greater our zeal or apparent wealth, the louder only will be the explosion,—the wider the ruin. The right hon. gentleman talks of a financial crisis, and how have we found him prepared to avert it, or by what measures has he proposed to meet it? one, and one only—taxation!—unjust, unnecessary, impossible taxation! Sir, the event of the crisis of a false, fallacious system, and under such auspices cannot, I fear, be doubtful. We have blown a bubble, and would fain believe it to be a ball of gold: the creation of a false standard of value has not a little contributed to our present embarrassment and distress—the consequences of so gross a practical error in political economy as the application of force to credit (a contradiction in terms), are now beginning to develope themselves, and where are the propositions on the part of the government for reverting to the point of safety from whence we have departed?—we look for them in vain. It would seem as if their senses could hardly credit that which their sagacity could not foresee. Sir, a return, not violent, not precipitate, but by sure and not slow degrees to a system at once safe, simple, and honest, is, in my conscience I believe, indispensable to our existence. And who can doubt for a moment what must be the first step taken towards such return? My friend the noble mover has told you, the address itself emphatically points it out—to bring your expenditure within your means! Incessantly progressive in the rapid career of public profusion, we have arrived at a point at which sums the most enormous cease to startle us;—the very magnitude of our expenditure has made its amount matter of indifference;—but it is a morbid indifference,—it is the callous carelessness of the consumptive patient! In the year 1780 Mr. Burke raised his powerful voice against an expenditure of 14 millions: in 1792 I find Mr. Pitt congratulating the country on the revenue exceeding the expenditure by near half a million, the one amounting to 16 millions, the other to 15½, including one appropriated to the sinking fund—: to-day we are desired to sit down patiently under an expenditure in establishments only of near 30 millions, and the total of the outgoings, including interest of debt, will come nearer to 70 than 60 millions!—but I have pledged myself to the House to avoid a detail already most ably gone into, and I shall leave the subject with putting one short question to the House;—if we cannot raise our revenue to meet our expenditure, and will not reduce our expenditure to the level of our means, is it not as demonstrable as the plainest proposition in Euclid, that ruin, inevitable ruin, must await us?

Sir, the secretary at war has more than hinted at the only real ground of opposition to this address, in the principle of which he assures us we are all agreed—it is neither more nor less than this, that any such address must necessarily imply some want of confidence in the minister of the day. Such is the awful consideration that is to strike us dumb, and to paralyze our efforts for the public good. Confidence! the noble lord opposite must surely have heard enough within these walls to satisfy him that the days of a blind, indiscriminate confidence were for him past and gone for ever—Confidence! how should it have survived the scenes we have witnessed during the present session?—or how can the noble lord continue to expect from others that which it is impossible he should any longer feel in himself? By what right would he claim it? in virtue of what would he claim it? For his system, or for his no system? for those measures by which he pledges himself to stand or fall, and is defeated, or for those to which neither standing nor falling, but reeling and staggering he is driven perforce? Is it for the assurances of one day, or for the contradictory act of the next? Is it for the prompt alacrity with which he arraigns the people when they presume to petition, or for the tardy afterthought with which he feebly throws the constitutional shield of his own responsibility around his royal master when assailed? Is it for the show of economy that reduces the clerk, or the spirit of prodigality that enriches the clerk's more favoured superior? Is it for the careless magnificence that either forgets or foregoes the debts justly due to his country, or the deliberate design that claims as droits all monies ceded to England, withdraws them from the control and expends them without the consent of parliament? In which of these conflicting virtues, of these inconsistent merits his claim is founded I know not; but, be it in any of them, or be it in all of them, I trust in God that the House of Commons is not yet prepared upon any such invitation to abandon its functions, to disclaim its duties! When will the House prove it-self the true guardian of the people's interests if not now? when will it speak out if not now? or how long shall we yet wait in the futile hope of better things? Shall we wait?—Oh shame! we have already waited till Austria has set us an example of military reduction, till France has read us a lesson in civil economy!—And if our internal situation demands this declaration from us, is there any thing in the exterior that forbids it? Sir, if ever there was a moment more marked out than another for the representatives of this great insular empire to approach their sovereign, to communicate with him frankly and firmly, it is the present—it is when a military spirit pervades the universe, and despotic government is the order of the day—when military rivalship has unavoidably grown out of combined military success—when the promises of free constitutions, made by military monarchs to their people in the hour of need, are either postponed or forgotten when the peril is past—when in one quarter a dynasty is maintained on its throne (I argue not now how wisely or how necessarily) by the force and presence of foreign arms—when, in another, loyalty the most devoted, because tempered with rational liberty—(the monstrous crime!) is doomed by him (shall I say the man?) whom it had restored to his throne, to the torture, to exile, imprisonment, and death! When such is the scene that the world presents to us, have we, I ask, nothing to look to at home with more than ordinary interest and anxiety?—nothing to watch over, nothing to fortify, nothing to confirm? Sir, it is in the nature and character of war to pervert the habits of a free people, to corrupt the purity of a free government. Bloodshed and rapine are not the worst evils attendant in its train;—the shock of arms, the desolation of the field are harmless as compared with its subtle and silent operation in undermining liberty and demoralizing man! It has been our lot for nearly a quarter of a century to endure this great calamity—a period indeed of transcendant, of imperishable glory!—but of that period not a day, not an hour has passed over our heads (I allege it not as matter of accusation, but of fact), that has not added something to a series of encroachments on the public rights and liberties. I will not carry the House through a long and disgusting detail to illustrate the revolting proposition; it will be enough to refer the House to the dark and dismal pages of our modern code of taxation! Sir, the brightest achievements of arms, the most splendid military renown are valuable to a nation only in proportion as they secure to it the enjoyment of its civil and social blessings. In war what is not justified, what is not overlooked, what is not permitted? but it is the province of peace to heal, to correct, to renovate. Then it is that this great country (great only because she is free) looks with a fond hope to see a patriot or enlightened minister applying the undivided energies of a comprehensive mind to consolidate the integrity of her own system—to restore her to the grandeur of her own simplicity! and would to God we had the genius of a Burleigh or a Godolphin to preside over the mighty work!

I know not, if in what I have said, I shall be accused of party feelings. I am not philosopher enough to be without preferences or predilections among the public men of my own time any more than of past time, and such as I honestly entertain I shall never be ashamed to avow;—but I am not so blind as to believe that the mass of the public can feel any very deep interest in the contest as between A and B,—a change of names alone will not satisfy, it ought not to satisfy the nation, —more, infinitely more, is necessary—and it is my firm conviction that no administration, of whatever party or parties composed, need at the present day pretend to the public confidence, who do not found their ministry on this basis—the bonâ fidesacrifice of patronage to the public necessities!

said:—Mr. Speaker; After the eloquent, the animated, and the luminous, speech which we have heard from my hon. friend, who has just sat down—after the impression which that speech cannot but have wrought upon the House, I feel, I assure you, most fully; the disadvantage under which I venture to offer myself to your notice. With the sentiments, however, which I have always entertained of the military establishments, now again brought under your notice, strongly as I feel those sentiments to be in unison with the motion of the noble lord, into whose hands I rejoice at the proposition of this night having fallen,—I must wish not to acquiesce quite in silence in this vote. So much, nevertheless has been said, and that so ably, on the general question of these establishments, that I am aware that I have neither the motive, nor indeed the excuse, for obtruding myself at any length on your attention.—I shall strictly confine myself to the view which I have always taken of these establishments, as applicable to our probable situation during the current year, and state very shortly the impressions which, after all that has passed in debate on this subject, operate still so strongly upon me. In the first place, Sir, I concur entirely in what has been so often, and I think I may say somewhat unnecessarily, repeated on the other side, namely, that this is a question which, whether financially or constitutionally viewed, never can, or ought to be considered as an abstract proposition. Every question, whether of the necessity, or of the danger, of proposed standing army, in time of peace, must, of course, be considered with reference to the extent of the force so proposed so proposed. For some army, even in peace, it is I believe allowed on all hands, is necessary.

But gentlemen opposite have very repeatedly warned us against the setting up any analogy, whatever, between the establishments of 1783 and 1792, and the military establishment now proposed. Because, it is said, by the course of time and of events, we are no longer in the same relative station with regard to the rest of the world, and therefore no analogy should be set up as to the rate of peace establishment. Sir, I agree entirely with those hon. gentlemen, although, perhaps, I agree with them on different premises, and certainly for a very different conclusion. But I agree with them that no such analogy should be attempted. I think there is every reason that time or events could have furnished us with for the peace establishment, at least as far as concerns England, being now considerably smaller than at any former period:—and for this plain reason, that, as our success has been unprecedented, unprecedented also ought to be the measure of security which that success has purchased. Otherwise, all our exertions have been unavailing—all our triumphs barren—nay worse than barren. Every drop of blood shed in the contest has been wantonly and wickedly wasted,—poured forth, not to advance the glory of our country, but to afford a pretext and a precedent for future establishments, highly burthensome to her finances, and highly dangerous to her public liberty.

But then we are told of our colonies, and Ireland. And with regard to this last most difficult and momentous point, I feel that I must not now obtrude any remarks I might have to offer upon the time of the House. After the portentous, but I fear too faithful, picture drawn of that gallant but ill-fated country by the right hon. secretary for Ireland, this subject has risen to a gloomy and awful importance which must, and ought to, render it a question of separate and independent discussion. I shall not therefore take up one moment of your time, Sir, on this point, excepting to observe that, in commenting on the weakness of the civil power in that country, and the necessity of an active military supervision, the right hon. secretary has drawn the picture of a country whose moral principle has been exhausted, whose social connexions have been dissolved, whose passions and prejudices have been all arrayed against the interests of good order and morality, by years (by centuries I may say) of misgovernment. He has described the symptoms, but not the disease. And surely, surely, in discussing the interests of that brave and kind-spirited nation, we should beware of encountering by martial law a disease, itself the result of a long system of governing by the fears, and not the affections of the people. Quid leges sine moribus?is not to be asked of Ireland. Ireland would reply, and I fear too truly, quid mores sine legibus?But of this I will! say no more. A very early day has been fixed for this discussion by a right hon. friend of mine near me.

But then, our colonies. We are reminded of our late vast accession of colonial greatness, and we are asked whether this part of our establishment is to be still on the scale of 1783 or 1792. The alternative is put to us as between the abandonment of what we have won, or the increase of our establishment in order to enable us to protect it. Sir, to this I think two answers may be given. In the first place I do not believe we are in this dilemma. I certainly very much mistook the policy of government if they did not recommend our late acquisitions to us on the very grounds of their being able, particularly the Ionian islands, to defend themselves. Hemmed in as they are in the corner of a sea where no navy is seen to float but England's, if those islands must be defended by England, surely their defence should be naval only. The West India islands are to be defended—against what? Against the navy of Hayti? No.—Against America? No.—We are at peace with her. Against what then? Martinique and Guadaloupe? Perhaps considering the unsettled state of France, considering this intermediate state described by a noble lord opposite, this purgatory between peace and war, it may be against Martinique and Guadaloupe. But who then ceded those islands to France? Why were they ceded? Was it to tempt France to break her reluctant vow against the revival of that most detestable of all human traffics, the traffic in slaves? Or was it only to give ourselves the pretext for an increase of military force in our West India Islands? Canada? But there it is said our population has vastly increased. And here, Sir, do permit me to protest against the argument of increased population calling for an increased military, wheresoever that argument may be applied. If your object be to array the military against the civil population, if you consider the latter as enemies against which the former is to act, as slaves the former is to coerce, or as victims the former is to immolate, then, and then only, can I understand the necessity of apportioning your military to the increasing growth of your civil population. But, if it means not this, the argument I think can mean nothing.—Then Gibraltar, and Malta. At the very time that we describe Malta as our great resting place, our tower of strength, in the Mediterranean, we give Gibraltar in time of peace a larger garrison than formed her complement in time of war. About 3000 was I believe the full average, in war, of the complement for Gibraltar, excepting, of course, during the memorable siege of that place, when the garrison was reinforced. And yet, in peace, in peace with Spain, when the Spanish lines, which it took all the energies of Spain, backed by the assistance of France, and the genius of Crillon, to erect under the guns of Gibraltar, when those lines have been destroyed, and when months, even after a declaration of war, must be spent, before a gun can be brought to bear against that fortress, mistress as she is of the sea on one hand, and the neutral ground on the other,—at this time, a larger garrison is in contemplation there, than was ever kept up even when those means of attack remained in their fullest integrity. But, Sir, if it could be shown, which I think it cannot, that our new gotten colonies, that the Cape, or Mauritius, or even Ceylon, requires, besides black troops, an augmentation of force to defend them,—supposing it can be shown, that they are totally dependent on extraneous means for defence,—that their expense exceeds their revenue,—that they are therefore elements of weakness and not of strength, and not of weakness only, but of danger to our liberties, by the means of patronage and the means of military excess they offer,—then indeed I think it might with justice be said "Perish our colonies, and live the constitution!"

But, Sir, let us return home and look at our army here. Let us look at the arguments by which ministers urge the necessity of these establishments. In the war out of which we have just so happily and so triumphantly found our way, an alliance of all the crowned heads of Europe associates itself in a bond as unprecedented as unexpected, to reduce the power of France within its just and proper limits. Success has outrun the expectations and the hopes of men, and the state in question is reduced to a position, in which she can but receive the terms to which that confederacy may be disposed to admit her. Such was the state to which the kind destinies of Europe had reduced France. Such was the glorious game which the extraordinary good fortune of the noble lord opposite had placed within his hands. Solid and permanent and glorious repose was set full within our view.

Now let us turn from a scene which the just expectations of the country had, too sanguinely, pourtrayed, and, in the exhausted and lamentable state of the country, let us direct our eyes to the picture, "like the mildewed ear, blasting its wholesome brother," of what the noble lord has done. A peace, gained by such sacrifices, and discussed under such advantages,—advantages "quæ nemo promittire divum auderet,"—a peace is concluded, whose weakness only is held out to us to justify the continued prospect of an armed truce abroad, and of ruined finances and a military government at home. From a struggle which appalled, I believe, the boldest of us, we have, by the talents and firmness of our general, by the intrepid and patient courage of our troops, been blessed with glorious victory. By the act of our ministers, we have, from a scene of triumph and exultation, from hopes of security justified by success, been left to contemplate the real result of all these things in continued burthens on the people, in hollow and dangerous truce, our country hated and insulted abroad, her liberties violently and daringly menaced at home. Let us look around, and see the state of our own country. Let us go forth among our fields and our manufactories, and let us see what are the tokens and indications of peace. Can we trace them among a peasantry without work, and consequently without bread? Among farmers unable to pay their rents, and, a fortiori, unable to contribute to that parochial relief on which the peasantry is rendered dependent? Among land-holders unable to collect their rents, and yet obliged to maintain their rank and station as gentlemen in society. Let us listen to the cry of the country. It is poverty from the proudest villa to the meanest cottage. Poverty rings in our ears, it lays in our path which ever way we turn. It is not the congratulations of the noble lord opposite, it is not his song of victory, that can drown this lamentable cry. It is not in the power of the noble lord, it is not in the power of this House, or of parliament, to stifle the cry of want, nor to brave the stroke of universal bankruptcy. There is but one means left to satisfy the country, to avert these evils, or to redeem the pledged faith of parliament. Retrenchment, rigorous, and severe retrenchment, in every branch, and in every article, of the public expenditure. What is the retrenchment we wish for? Look again to that enormous establishment which was once declared by ministers to be essential to the safety of the empire, and which has been once already, since that declaration, withdrawn in the estimates, and reduced. Where are we to learn the necessity of such retrenchment? Let us look to every private establishment, from high to low, which our taxes have ruined, and there let us learn the lesson of economical reform.

Sir, these are awful signs of the time we live in, and the more so because we see that at a period, like this, of general domestic retrenchment, there is one private establishment only that has not yet obeyed the call,—there is but one House that, as the pressure has increased, has welcomed yet further profusion,—and that is, unhappily, to be said of the first House in the land. It is not, Sir, on account of the already unprecedented state to which your public finances are reduced,—it is not on account of the yet increasing distress and difficulty which must chill the enterprise and check the commercial prosperity of your empire,—which affects, in nearly an equal degree, every rank, station, and description of men,—it is not on this account alone that I should entreat the House to consider once more what is the ruinous extent of the establishment it has, this year, sanctioned. Financial distress, however great, may, by discreet and cautious economy, be yet repaired. It is not on account of the weak and exhausted state to which this country must be reduced by these establishments in time of peace, and in which exhausted state the country will be found, should necessity again compel us to have recourse to arms,—it is not on this consideration alone that I appeal to the House. The means of national resource, however enfeebled, may, by public energy and public zeal, at such a crisis, be yet revived. It is on account of the departure from those old constitutional principles on which the greatest minds have acted, and the greatest authorities of our history have spoken,—it is on account of the departure from those great maxims, the bulwarks at once of public liberty and public happiness, which, if once overthrown, can never be restored,—it is on account of the abandonment of those constitutional securities, which have hitherto formed the bond of mutual union and confidence between the Crown and people (securities which, till now, parliament has never undervalued or disregarded), which are still within our reach, but on which the vote of to-night is now, for the last time, to pronounce,—that I hope and trust the House will second the voice of the country in acceding to the motion of the noble lord.

thought, that, however pertinaciously the noble lord might adhere to his system, the measure now stood in a very different view from that which it presented at the commencement of the session; and he was certain the noble lord would never have proposed it, had he not depended on the support of the income tax. As the matter stood at present, he would ask whether the noble lord meant to add insult to the sufferings of the country? So entirely was the situation of the country changed, that the noble lord must make out an uncommonly strong case to prove that all those principles of naval defence, which had been so sacredly cherished by our ancestors, must now be foregone, and sup- I planted by that system of military pageantry of which the noble lord seemed so enamoured. Had he endeavoured to reduce this military mania, he would have immortalized himself; but, instead of this, he had increased all the burthens consequent on such a system. The noble lord said that a large force must be kept up here to supply our West India islands. He (Mr. Curwen) doubted the policy of maintaining colonies in that quarter, particularly Canada; he thought the wisest measure would be to declare that country independent, and thereby to save the expense of the military force which was stationed there. The situation of the country was such, that minor retrenchments were inadequate to meet the exigencies of the times. The resources were obviously inadequate to meet the expenditure, yet with a degree of inconsistency, somewhat unaccountable, we were told by the noble lord, "O! wait till next year, and you'll be relieved." If the noble lord was allowed to go on in this way the state of peace would soon be more ruinous than a state of war [Hear!]. A fair chance was now given to the noble lord of uniting himself with the country, and again recovering that popularity which he had lost. He was ashamed to gee that want of decency in the noble lord which led him to be so indifferent to public feeling, and so ready to insult the country. It was at all times derogatory to the character of a minister to thwart the public voice, but it was particularly so in the noble lord, considering the manner in which he so thwarted it.

said, that as far as related to the finances, he would be sorry not to have an opportunity of explaining shortly one or two of the points which had been touched upon in the course of this debate. With respect to the motion itself, he could not think that it would be wise to adopt it, as it would make the House decide prematurely on the establishment for the ensuing year. Neither the noble lord who moved the address, nor any other person, could so calculate upon those circumstances which might occur during the year to alter the situation of the country with relation to the amount of the establishments which might be necessary. The present was not the permanent peace establishment, but was such a one as the circumstances of the country required; and it was as such that the House had already decided upon it. But the noble lord was not contented with this; he now called upon the House to decide upon measures of future economy. To call upon the House to give any decision upon measures of prospective regulation, with respect to the amount of establishments to be maintained, was equally premature and unwise. Another hon. gentleman, however, had given a new turn to the debate, by calling upon the House to support the address, not with a view of rescinding the vote on the establishments, nor with a view to any prospective regulations, but as an expression of a want of confidence in his majesty's ministers. He could only say that he wished this was as plainly expressed in the address as it was implied. But without saying more on this subject, he would pass to what had been said by another hon. gentleman, who thought the financial situation of the country was so much changed as to make new regulations necessary with respect to the amount of the establishment. If this was really the case, he could only say that, for his own part, he would be the first to come forward and propose such new arrangements. But he conceived that the sums for the public service had been voted on more stable grounds; and that the situation of the country was not so much changed as to make it necessary to abandon the establishment which had been agreed to by parliament. It was undoubtedly true that some new regulations merely as to finance had become necessary; but whatever variation might be required in this respect in consequence of the resolutions of the House, it would not be expected that he should now open the budget by anticipation, by going into the minute details of these variations. He would therefore at present merely make a few statements in round numbers, to help the House to judge of the force of some of the arguments that had been used this night by an hon. gentleman on the other side of the House (Mr. Grant). That hon. gentleman had argued, that there would this year be an excess in the supplies, over the ways and means, to the amount of 19,300,000l., which sum it would be necessary to borrow. Now, the following were the facts: there was a loan from the bank to the amount of 4,500,000l.;and it had also become necessary to borrow a sum sufficient to repay the amount of the taxes rejected by the House, which was about 8,500,000l.These two sums, making together 13,000,000l.,was the whole amount which would be necessary, instead of 19,300,000l.as stated erroneously by the hon. gentleman. Then, as to the comparison made between the present establishment, and those at the commencement of a former peace, the peace establishment this year after the war, required a loan of 13,000,000l. Having mentioned the word "loan," he might now state to the House, that a loan formed no part of the resources of the present year [Hear, hear!]. For the service of this year 13,000,000l.remained to be raised in some way; and of this sum 4,500,000l.had already been advanced by the bank. During the present year the people had already been released from taxes to the amount of sixteen or seventeen millions; a prodigious sum, exceeding even the amount of the whole public revenue at the commencement of the war, a sum so far exceeding any relief of this kind that had been given at the close of a war, that never, on any former occasion, had any relief at all been given in this way. The case was very different at the close of the American war, when, instead of taking off taxes, Mr. Pitt had been obliged to lay on new taxes to the amount of two millions. But this year, instead of laying on new taxes, as had been necessary after the peace of 1783, taxes were taken off to the amount of 17,000,000l.,leaving a difference in favour of the present state of the country, compared with that at the close of the American war, of 19,000,000l.Now, as to the expenditure, compared with what it was then. In this, the first year of peace, we had voted an establishment of 26,000,000l., including the interest of exchequer bills. In the year 1783 the amount voted was 14,000,000l.,exclusive (as he believed, but he could not now speak positively) of the interest of exchequer bills. In 1784, the expense of the establishment was reduced from 14,000,000l.,to 8,000,000l.Thus, then, in 1783, the country while at peace had an establishment which cost 14,000,000l.at a time when the whole resources to meet this sum, besides the duties of customs and excise, were the land and malt taxes, when there was no surplus of the consolidated fund, nor those facilities which were now in our power. So that in 1783, calculating at the highest, the clear amount of the income was only one-fifth part of the amount of the sum voted for the establishment. What was the situation of the country now? In the present year the surplus of the consolidated fund amounted to about 3,000,000l. (it was 2,600,000l.at Christmas, and might now therefore be safely stated at 3,000,000l.), and there were excise taxes to the amount of 4,000,000l.;so that this year, having voted an establishment of 24,000,000 l.,the whole amount of the resources to meet it was 10,000,000l.;therefore, the clear income of this year bore to the expenditure a proportion of one-fourth more than it did at the close of the American war in 1783. In comparing the state of the country at these two periods, it was to be recollected, that at the former there was no sinking fund; and of this fund, he said, it was now a treasure, and not a charge to government—but a treasure which it was better to reserve than to touch upon. He did not wish in these details to anticipate what he should soon have to open to the House in his official capacity, but the most satisfactory reflexions resulted from what he had stated. The hon. gentleman opposite had praised Mr. Pitt for the clamour he had encountered; he therefore hoped that on this score his majesty's ministers would be allowed the merit of having encountered clamour even to the extent of overwhelming superiority. Yet they had not shrunk from their duty; but, on the contrary, in the support of that which they thought a most wise, politic, and necessary plan of finance, they had hazarded whatever they enjoyed of popularity. This he hoped would be taken not only as a proof of their sincerity but of their firmness, in maintaining what they thought right with a view to the public interest. As to the motion before the House, he thought his noble friend, the secretary at war, had adopted the proper course in not giving a direct negative to a motion, the object of which was public economy. It was therefore better to pass to the other orders of the day.

said, it was with extreme reluctance that he found himself compelled to oppose the measures of the noble lord, with respect to the large mili- tary establishments which it was intended to maintain. He was aware that he had no right to trouble the House with his own private feelings, but he was anxious, as it was his first political opposition, to assure the noble lord that he felt the most unfeigned respect for him, and that he firmly believed he was actuated by as much honesty and integrity as any of his hon. friends by whom he was surrounded. With respect to the military establishments, considering them in a constitutional point of view, he certainly thought them highly dangerous, besides being, as they undoubtedly were, greater than the service of the country required. They only enabled ministers to persevere in their extravagance, against the distresses and against the voice of the people. He could not comprehend why the sentiments of the nation were to be disregarded upon that subject alone. The people, by their firmness, had succeeded in getting rid of the property tax. The same people had since petitioned against the large establishments; but the same representatives who had voted against the property tax, had not voted against the large establishments. They had, on the contrary, supported them. He did not wish to insinuate the slightest imputation upon those hon. members, but surely it was to be lamented that the exertions of the people out of doors had not been more strenuously supported in that House. His majesty's ministers seemed to be unaccountably ignorant of the real situation of the country. Whether it was that, like their royal master, they breathed altogether in a different atmosphere, or that they were surrounded by interested flatterers, who studiously sought to delude them, so it was, that they exhibited an utter unacquaintance with the feelings which animated every class of the people. Among the other grounds which he had heard alleged for maintaining so large a military force, was that there existed a great spirit of Jacobinism throughout the country. If such a spirit did indeed prevail, that House ought to inquire whether it arose from the pressure of real, or the influence of imaginary grievances. He apprehended, however, that what was called Jacobinism would be found to be only discontent at evils which might and ought to be removed. Another reason which had been urged for keeping up a standing army, was the insecurity of the peace, but on that point all sides of the House seemed now to be agreed, and he apprehended the noble lord himself would not affirm that there was any real ground for suspecting its duration, whatever plausible arguments might be used for maintaining our own military establishments upon a large scale until the other powers of Europe had reduced theirs, and until the civil authorities in every country assumed their just and proper ascendancy over the military ones. The hon. member concluded by animadverting upon the institution of the military college, which he considered as calculated, in time of peace especially, to generate habits and feelings incompatible with those sentiments upon which the true greatness and prosperity of the country must always rest.

observed that the speech of the chancellor of the exchequer was one suited merely for his own purposes. He had compared the present year with that of 1783, and talked about relieving the country from 17,000,000l.of taxation. Why had he so relieved the country? Because he knew that those taxes could not be paid by the people [Hear, hear]! He knew also, that even if the income tax had not been rejected, it would have been impossible to collect it even at 5 per cent. Those who had justified that impost on the grounds stated by Mr. Pitt, ought to show that the situation of the country was the same now as at that period: it would be no easy undertaking to prove, that during the administration of Mr. Pitt, farms had been relinquished, rents unpaid, and gazettes crowded with daily bankruptcies to any thing like the extent at present experienced. The conduct of ministers demonstrated that they were utterly unacquainted with the real state of the country; they wilfully shut their eyes upon its distresses, for he could not suppose them so positively blind as to be really insensible to what was obvious to all but themselves. He defied them to impose upon the country any system of mock economy; the good sense of the nation would not be so deluded; and the House, as representing the nation, was bound to reject all mere pretences of retrenchment. He deprecated the expedient of a small loan, which he had heard mentioned, because it was calculated to depress the funds.

The cries of question became general, and the House divided on the amendment for proceeding to the other orders of the day:

in pursuance of notice, rose to move for the repeal of the present Alien Bill, for the purpose of introducing a measure more calculated to the circumstances of the country, similar to that adopted by parliament after the peace of Paris. He observed, that although tranquillity in Europe had been restored, the situation of the British empire was still such as to require precautions against the possibility of the disturbance of internal security. The peace Alien Bill of 1814 had been found adequate to the purpose for which it was designed, and had rendered the war Alien Bill previously in force unnecessary: it had for some years been found convenient to watch the entrance of foreigners into this kingdom by a measure which, while it gave certain power to the executive government, was calculated also for the protection of those to whom it related; but no law ought to exceed the exigency of the case, which was now considerably lessened. The Crown, in truth, possessed the right of sending aliens out of the realm on suspicion that they were concerned in practices dangerous to the state; but it had been thought wise, since the time of Mr. Pitt, to arm the executive with the countenance of the legislature; and for this purpose he now moved for leave to bring in a bill to repeal the act of the last session respecting aliens, and to substitute other provisions, for a time to be limited, in lieu of it.

was not aware that any such motion had been fixed for this night; but he was anxious, in the very first instance, to give it his decided negative. He had opposed the alien bill of 1814, because he thought it not only uncalled for, but unconstitutional; and if at that time it was not required, there was now even still less excuse for such a measure. The noble lord had talked in his usual style a style—that had now become fashionable—of a peace alien bill, and a war alien bill. The House had heard lately of peace regulation bills, and war regulation bills; of peace bank restriction bills, and war bank restriction bills; and now it was once more to be told, that extraordinary powers were required to enable ministers to send foreigners out of the country. To the constitution such a measure was unknown, for it allowed ingress and egress of foreigners without restriction; and the reason stated by Mr. Pitt for the alien act of 1792 was, that it was merely to secure internal tranquillity, and not to be applied to such purposes as those to which it had of late years been perverted—the confinement and transportation of individuals who had, for some cause or other not assigned, become obnoxious to ministers. In 1793 certain principles were afloat which might be supposed dangerous to the repose of the nation; but where would the noble lord now discover any such peril? If the noble lord could furnish any from his fertile imagination, he would not find a man in the country to agree with him. He trusted, now the possibility of injury from the interference of the inhabitants of other states was removed, that the ancient and wholesome system of policy would be pursued; and that Great Britain would treat strangers with her wonted liberality and confidence, without dreading that a few foreigners, even if they were ill disposed, would be able to disturb her tranquillity and happiness. He must therefore solemnly protest against the introduction of this peace alien bill.

justified his noble friend in calling it the peace alien bill, on the ground that it had been so denominated after the treaties of Amiens and of Paris. It was true that the revolutionary principles that broke out in 1793 had now been nearly extinguished; but still a remnant of Jacobin spirit lurked behind, and much inflammable matter was to be found that might, without difficulty, be fired by the aid of suspicious foreigners. At least, therefore, a possibility of danger existed against which prudence required that provision should be made. Magna Charta, and the constitutional principles there formed for the protection of alien merchants, had often been referred to; but the power of the king to send beyond seas such strangers as should be obnoxious from their designing practices, was at least as old, if not as completely recognised. The question now was, whether the dangers of 1814 did not at present exist; and if they did, the alien bill ought to be passed, to show foreigners that they could not with impunity foment discontents among the people of this country against the established government.

thought that the right hon. gentleman had not put the question on the proper footing, for all his arguments tended to prove that the country should always have had an alien act. As to the danger to be apprehended from the remnant of Jacobinism and from foreigners, no one but the right hon. gentleman could perceive it. If there was a period at which a spirit of satisfaction, quiet, and loyalty prevailed throughout the nation, it was the present. The right hon. gentleman had said, that the Crown had at all times possessed the powers to be conferred by the bill. Then why propose such a measure? It would enable other governments to interfere, in order to turn out, not those who were dangerous to us, but obnoxious to those governments. If Ferdinand of Spain, or the kings of France and of Prussia had any hostility towards an individual, they would only have to make a communication to the secretary of state, and he would have no choice left but to comply with their request. He had himself witnessed cases in which persons of the greatest respectability, who had come over on pursuits entirely commercial, had been sent away most unjustly, on the mere representation of a foreign minister. It would be far more convenient for the secretary of state to be able to say, as lord Whitworth had done to Buonaparté in the case of Peltier, that he was subject to no other laws than the laws of this country, although that was not true at the time, for the power of removal had already been conferred on government by the alien act. He should certainly vote against the introduction of any such bill, as that now proposed.

stated, that there were now 20,000 aliens in this kingdom, and added, that it would be highly imprudent, till the spirit of animosity against this country and her institutions had been eradicated, not to keep an account of those individuals, of their professions, and of their places of abode. He also denied that any merchants had been sent away on the mere representation of a foreign minister without any cogent reasons against them.

although he did not believe that any injustice had been committed under the former and existing alien acts, yet was persuaded that they had occasioned great irregularities, and that they had been diverted from their ostensible object for the purpose of aiding the police, and saving the trouble of proceeding against foreigners according to the ordinary forms of law.

Leave was given to bring in the bill.

observing an hon. gentleman belonging to the board of control present, wished to know, whether, in consequence of the report of the committee appointed last session to inquire into the condition of the Lascar sailors who came to this country in pri- vate ships, any step had been taken to provide for the relief of their extreme distress?

stated, that a correspondence had taken place on the subject with the East India and the East India dock companies, but without success. Applications had then been made to other bodies, and it would probably be necessary to come to parliament to create a commission, and invest it with such powers as may be deemed proper. He should not object to the production of any part of the correspondence which had been carried on with the two companies, if the hon. gentleman should wish to examine it.

thought it was proper that the House should see what had taken place. It appeared that the East India company had refused to undertake any thing for the permanent relief of the Lascars during their stay in this country. He therefore should move, "That there be laid before this House, a copy of all correspondence between the commissioners for the affairs of India, and any other public body, relative to the care and maintenance of Lascar sailors during their stay in England."

begged the House would suspend their opinion until the papers should be before them; and stated generally, that the indisposition manifested by the respective bodies to which they belonged to take upon themselves any responsibility on the subject, was occasioned solely by their conviction, that nothing short of parliamentary interference could be effective with respect to it.

defended the conduct of the East-India dock company on similar grounds. He maintained, that nothing but the power of government could manage that people.

The motion was agreed to.